such opinions points to privilege but enforcing such opinions would be Unconstitutional

My post was in response to your statement that once freed from prison, a convicted felon should have the right to to own a gun so as to be in keeping with the constitution. We disagree, for sure. I would argue that it points to privilege to assert that failing to abide by the law should not result in forfeiture of the rights afforded to law abiding citizens.

there are those that live in places where they are Bears, Cougars, Crocodiles, Bigfoot, Chupacabras also known as the "Mexican Goat Sucker" and then denying them their 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves would not only be Constitutionally Offensive but morally reprehensible

Alternately, those who live in such places should take particular care not to forfeit their rights. Choosing to commit crimes which would result in loss of rights, then arguing the constitution is nothing more than an argument against personal responsibility.

some generally feel that way until the time comes when it is a few of their rights that are the ones being taken away

Like my right to feel safe(r)? Really? One could make that argument about nearly anything. I am a smoker; I've lost some degree of "rights", but the truth is that I have enough common sense to realize that whether I like it or not, my rights only exist to the extent that they don't affect the rights of others. Therefore, I don't **** abut no longer being allowed to smoke in a movie theater.

the Constitution were always up to date it's the fact that people are not willing to follow the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence "honestly" is why it had to be amended

The constitution was not always "up to date", it was merely "in keeping with the times".

Being "constitutionally honest" doesn't negate common sense. Certainly you don't suggest that there is a "someone" who randomly decides to take away any one individual's right to bear arms and finds a way to then have them convicted of a felony or deemed mentally ill to the extent where they are institutionalized.

The fact that there have been 33 amendments suggests at least some effort to bring the Constitution up to date.

I do believe that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. Just my opinion, but perhaps the basis of such loss of rights for those who made choices or were unfortunate enough to put themselves/be in a position where their peers ( jury , family member, etc.) felt they were safer if that person had a few less rights.

My first thought on this is, that you are exactly describing the reasoning behind a lot of the people who DO lie, right now.

They are hoping for exactly that result: that you'll meet, and the person who was lied to, will realize how silly they were to have drawn the limits that they had, before finding out just how wonderful this codger really is.

Next: it isn't WHAT someone lies about which is the concern. It's WHY they lie. Lying to avoid small embarrassments, is usually understandable and unimportant. Those are the kinds of lies which go away, as soon as you get to know each other well enough to have confidence about yourselves.

But what your scenario describes, is someone who has shown that they believe in lying whenever a lie is required, in order for them to get what they want. I've had several experiences with people who thought that way, and every single one, ended up with me being severely emotionally hurt, and often financially damaged as well. So I would say that the chances of my NOT having my confidence in such a person as a mate be shattered, upon learning the truth, are tiny.

The premise of the 80/20 rule is that you will never get more than 80% of what you want in a partner, the 80/20 rule is why many cheat and why many have a fear of commitment.

Interesting.... It's all about perspective/interpretation. One could instead choose to call the 80/20 rule the realization that relationships involve compromise. There is no "rule" to excuse cheating or to explain fear of commitment; both are personal choices and those who choose either simply feel they need an excuse to do so.

I personally don't believe that relationships today suck any more than in the past, or likely in the future.

an American citizen convicted of a felon and released from prison is still an American citizen and to then have their 2nd amendment rights striped away from them is unconstitutional

That might be your opinion, but I do believe that it is a fact that the majority of US states, as well as the federal gov't, exclude convicted felons from legally owning firearms.

the 2nd amendment does not specifically mention guns...it is about the right to bear arms which means an American citizen have the right to have a predator drone, a nuke, even a Death Star ..these items are also considered to be "arms".. once citizens start droning other citizens is when the 2nd amendment will most likely be amende

that's kinda funny! I don't believe that those who penned the 2nd amendment had any idea what a drone was! Truth is, the 2nd amendment as penned is most relevant to carrying muskets.

No matter how you feel personally, let's be honest here. Do you really believe that someone, for example diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic should be carrying a weapon? If you believe that one need be "locked up" in order to have that right rescinded, should one assume that you feel the government should have the right to lock up those diagnosed with such an illness?

This is a bit more difficult of a question, as far as I'm concerned. Just my opinion; peace!

So this information that is from the government...... Are you saying the government has an agenda in this?

You insult us all when you assume we can't follow this thread. Clearly the post I quoted & responded to cited paternityfraud2 & menactivism.org, which are most certainly NOT gov't sites.

As any one with one eye and half sense can see....

Paternity fraud occurs when a mother names a man to be the biological father of a child, when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father. ....So that is a accurate description of paternity fraud..... By the legal definition.

My one eye & "half sense" see clearly the subtle means of equating "knows or suspects" with "intentionally or unintentionally". They are not, however, the same, and it is most certainly not an accurate description by the legal definition.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.... It shows neither.... What that stat shows is how many men were served by substitute service.

Right back atcha, cuz this is what I read:"nearly 80 percent of paternity establishments come in the form of default judgments." Fairly easy to comprehend. Furthermore, guidelines for service are pretty clear...."If the other parent avoids service by a process server, Sheriff, or Constable, you may ask thecourt to use an alternative or substituted form of service. If the court allows an alternative orsubstituted form of service, you must make reasonable efforts to make sure the other parent isnotified that you filed a Petition.Alternative methods of service may include securely posting a copy of the Summons andPetition on the door of the other parent’s residence, or similar methods. All alternative methodsmust be approved in advance by the court for service to be valid.If you use an alternative method of service, you MUST also mail the papers to the other parent’slast known home or work address. "

No oversight that you did not address how it is that these same men who were somehow conveniently served in absentia (so to speak) are so easily located in order to extort from them. I stand by my comments.

I feel the same about women who return to violent relationships/men...... if they don't know well enough to stay away then they must learn to live with the consequences. On the other hand, I'm sure you're going to have some sort of excuse for taxpayers to fund temporary shelters for these women to heal.... then go back to the jerk

As do I. Surely you realize, however, that, contrary to your statement, shelters are NOT set up & funded for those women who choose to go back; they are in place as an escape. Many a woman has lived another day because of them. No matter, not really a comparable situation, no matter how you spin it.

FYI, more than 1/2 of "battered" women do actually leave. Additionally, approx. 1/3 of female homicide victims are killed by their "partner". As I said, not really a situation that can be compared. Even if the 30% thrown about in regards to misnamed paternity were an actual fact, fraud is hardly the equivalent of murder.

I suggest this is simply another attempt to turn the conversation away from what is pertinent. It is unrelated.

I enjoy the friendship and association with women who have the decency and pride to help with procuring a better life for children. I lack any sort of care and consideration for those who use their children as pawns, under the "sanctitiy" of motherhood, for their own personal gain.

Well, please don't take it as an endorsement of your position, because I whole-heartedly support mandatory DNA testing.

People here love to yap about the horrendous things that will happen from a database that holds parents' DNA, but as I and others have pointed out, there is no reason for any sort of DNA data tracking necessary if the testing were required.

The DNA test could be between a doctor, the father, the mother and the new-born

There is nothing to prevent a requested DNA test now! Why the need for a mandate? The mandate is the issue here; no one has suggested denying a father the right to a paternity test. There are very many men (some of them whom have posted here, as they support their own "right" to defraud a biological father, just not someone else's) who don't want a paternity test, for whatever reason.

Only 79% of default judgments are ordered because of un- notified men..

Most certainly pertinent that your links are to sites with very clear agendas. In case you missed it, nearly the first line wrongly defines paternity fraud. Fraud involves intent, lying. Not to defend lying, but one's inability to concede that a mistake can happen & that intent is a difficult to prove, legally speaking is a clear indication of an agenda based bias. The stat is blatantly false. 79% refers to the number who fail to show for the court appearance, not those who were not notified. They may CLAIM to be so, but unless you truly are stating that only women lie..... Many of those same men also claim to have been easily found so as to be extorted via wage garnishment. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out.

This is not about misandry, as those of us truly concerned about civil rights include the civil rights of males.

Most of our laws are to stop the few from defrauding the rest...... So why are men facing paternity fraud not allowed to have this same type of protection?

Says who? A valid comparison would be those women who are impregnated by men who lied to them about their virility. No one is advocating on their behalf, as they, too, should bear personal responsibility. For the most part, they are forced to do so, as it should be. Unless we are wiling to allow the government to intervene in every aspect of our personal choices & relationships, we will have to continue to live with "the unfairness of it all". I suggest it may be time to pick up your big-girl panties, so to speak.

The only way to be sure of "identify(ing) the correct father" and "forcing women to tell the truth" would require that all male citizens and residents capable of ejaculation would have to yield up a DNA sample to be held in a database so that a newborn childs' DNA could be compared in that database

^^^^^^^....... that is the most dumbass response I've read in this thread so far.

You can call it dumbass, but it is the truth, plain & simple. It was also posted in response to those who attempted to portray this as an issue "all about the children". Mandated paternity testing of infants would not ensure a child's birthright. Those of us who argue in favor of retention of our civil rights include the rights of males, and would no sooner impose a mandate that would effect men, ad only men, were it to effect the stated concern; that children would know who their father is. Let's face it, even identifying a man as a biological father does nothing to ensure that child KNOWS their father, which would be the best case in any scenario.

Just to put the last bit of dirt on these crazy women's heads that means they were already aware that DNA testing and a DNA mandatory data bank is already in place and being utilized via the government all along. So what was C4's point in going on and on about they would have to put one together and it being against 4th amendment rights and such? That's right they are all a bunch of liars and deceivers. Why? Because they were aware of this all along because they posted on these threads and said nothing. What a freaking joke. lmao Wow!

As recently as 12/2014, he US Senate passed a privacy amendment protection. We are aware, "we" are not women alone & it is being addressed. FYI, the most widely known test, PKU is not accurate until 24-48 hrs after birth. Since 2 of my 3 children were at home less than 24 hrs after birth, they wasted your money & mine. Not to mention that retesting was done with my consent, my choice. As insurance companies require more & more quick discharges, I expect we will continue to see such changes.

It's not a joke, and the fact that many of chose to at least attempt to stay on topic is evidence of nothing. There is consistency in my logic, my beliefs & my fact finding attempts. It is your posts that point towards an agenda. Not to worry, as we "crazy women" tend to shampoo often.

Not so, unless one assumes that not one single woman who has named a man as a father erroneously was mistaken rather than a perpetrator of fraud.

That's because the courts have no other option. Mandatory testing would resolve this issue at birthI'm not certain if this was ever the issue but, what if the real biological father wanted to be the provider for this child? Where are his rights being protected?

Also untrue. Courts don't force every man named as a father to pay cs, only those men who either fail to show for court or act as a father for some period of time before questioning their fatherhood. Mandatory wouldn't solve the problem, either, unless it was men rather than babies who were subjected to the mandate. You are correct, mandatory testing does not protect the rights of a father, either.

If I recall, you are willing to throw this issue to the side because you don't trust big brother. It's disgusting you would do that to children and men just to appease your conspiracy theory.

I stated a long time ago that the child has rights. Either you want to protect the child's rights and assure the child is given it's proper biological identity, or you don't. As a dults, we are failing to provide properly for children - read the news and court cases rather than rely on statistics.

The real issue here is that adults are neglecting a child's rights for the sake and virtue of their own vanity..... now that is disgusting

What you"recall" is your agenda filled assumption that I have a "conspiracy theory". I advocate personal responsibility, I advocate the protection of ones right to privacy. Most importantly, I have seen nothing that would indicate that paternity fraud exists to such an extent as to warrant a mandate. I have been quite clear about that, no matter how you choose to twist it. I don't think it's right to lie, to cheat or to extort but it happens every day & there no mandates that prevent it. I am responsible for my own choices & accept the price I might pay for those choices, as well as what might amount to nothing more than misfortune or a weak moment & I don't expect (nor desire, at the expense of my civil rights) the government to step in in a manner which would affect so many others not in the same situation.

This proposed mandate does nothing toward assuring that a child know their "proper biological identity". To suggest that we ignore facts & rely on media hype & those few court cases that fuel fires is evidence of an agenda, nothing more. Mandated testing for newborns has little to do with a child's rights or vanity, and it is equally disgusting that you suggest that it does.

Much of what you say is true "screw" but the topic here is supposed to be mandated paternity testing. Simply stating an opinion not in support of same began a backlash, accusing some of misandry & extortion.

Studies, real actually published studies show that nearly 20% of females in college are sexually assaulted, but none of us are advocating requiring male college students to submit their DNA. This issue is not limited to children who are "denied" parentage; it is a civil rights/government intervention/privacy issue, as mandating testing will not ensure parentage information of children.

That the children are most pertinent is what leads some of us to understand (not condone, but understand) why it is that courts may sometimes find it in the best interest of a child to continue to be supported by a parent not their own biologically, but who has acted as a parent. It is not true that there has been "almost NO look" at the real victims here, but the topic doesn't warrant it, as mandated paternity testing would not result in identifying a father, other than those instances where the named father is such.

The seeming need of some to be "right" or "own" others has resulted in what you see here as disgusting, and you are right, it is.

7 and 8 year olds are far too young to be outdoors without adult supervision and that mother is no help.But he needs some man time to learn self protection skills, and at 10 should know not be hitting girls. He's too old for mommy to be having sit downs with female 7 year old bullies. Invite boys his own age over.

How strange is it that about %30 of NCF owe back child support. That about %30 of men feel they aren't the father with or without reason. That when whynotme was on we talked about a father they finally let off the hook after years. She made a point to mention the AG stated it was no big loss as he wasn't paying anyway. The funny thing is these ladies talk themselves in so many circles that before they know it they agree with you more than they disagree and don't even realize it. lmao

Well, I'm back. Haven't the time to go back to where we left off, but since you mentioned me in the above, well... BS!

Not at all true that 30% of NCP's owe back support. About 30% of CP's receive some CS (some being the operative word). 30% of CP's receive none of CS due. 40% of CP's receive all of what is due for cs. So much for that.

I know not where you get that 30% of men feel they aren't fathers, but the 30% is thrown around as the number of men who are proven not to be the father of the child they claim not to be the father of. That is very different. If it were true, it would equate to 9 of every hundred men (9%, not 30!) proven correct. I suggest you buy a calculator, or take Math 101.

I will point out, your gov site is wrong. A man can request a dna test through cs, but the mother does not have to oblige. Then the man is required to sue the woman to move the case through the courts. I have personally seen that by child services.Also skip back to the part in this thread where it was stated by several health care professionals that a man can not request a test.

Tests are requested via the courts rather than health care providers.Very many women seeking cs face the same issue whilst searching for the named father she wants to submit to a test.

They may, but the testing discussed in this forum would not accomplish. we would instead have to argue that all males submit DNA samples to some government agency or the other. There are lots of reasons to not like that, for many of us.

Fairly easy to find facts on this Warren guy.....

"He came to prominence in the 1970s, championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW)"

Was the difference, really? It is at least good evidence of an agenda at work.

Not automatic however the courts are finding more and more that extortion is not in the best interests of the child

I have to agree with the Lady, as you simply cannot be so obtuse! We are not talking of the 1 man in a million, quite literally who has some wacky female he picked up somewhere name him as a father, not even knowing his last name, he can't be found, and 3 yrs later somehow finds out that he is on the hook for a child he had no idea even existed. Even that may not be quite extortion, still, it's not prevalent in the type of man involved in these situations. You ignore the reality; the man who stays with a woman who strays, a man who accepts a child, and the responsibility for that child, for quite a period of time. That is not extortion, & it may well be in the best interest of the child, just as it most often is in the best interest of a child to have a relationship with a nonpaying noncustodial parent. I understand the theory behind that law as well. Noone is saying its always fair or that it isn't a difficult subject with many facets, but you act as if you fail to see any scenario other than that which hardly exists at all.

I understand how child support is suppose to work and I understand how it actually works. I also understand no one is getting rich but they are getting money tax free they didn't earn. Is it a correct amount? What about when a child/ren are old enough not to need daycare?

As do I. Then you are well aware that the vast majority of cp's are receiving at best an acceptable, fair amount. You are also that the majority of cs is not paid via court order, rather by agreement between the parties.

Why then are you unaware that those you so vehemently defend are not only not the norm, they are the dregs of society! Rail on with your "publicized" exceptions, but they are few & far between. Certainly insufficient to warrant a mandate of any kind. Insufficient to provide evidence that evil women are out searching for unsuspecting strangers to steal from via paternity fraud. For the most part, the "victims" of such crimes were well aware with whom they lay. For the most part, they are those who don't pay cs either way. For the most part, they have children by more than one woman & don't support any of them. For the most part, they are complicit in welfare fraud. Birds of a feather really do flock together.

I honestly don't have an agenda however I'm guessing a woman that fully expected a man to support her to the point of paying large amounts to extend her cobra health insurance as tsar stated you did, does. Is that even true?

You're a fool, and too old to be gullible enough to accept drivel posted here. None of your business really, but my ex did not contribute one cent toward my COBRA, nor one cent towards his children medical, nor one cent toward their copays or other non covered medical, nary a few dollars toward their college education, and not one happy meal. K? That is not your fault. I am fully aware that my bad luck/poor choice/unfortunate circumstance, whatever, is not the fault of the opposite gender. I think that's the difference between you & I. In any case, personal responsibility negates the need for government intervention.

Simple laws that allow any man to be tested on a case by case basis is all that is needed.....provided that the test results are abided to either way.

Case by case testing is certainly allowed now. The real problem is that in these type of cases, most men fail to show up. You can ramble on about how they are often not informed, all the while claiming how easy it is to find them to collect cs, but the truth remains; the men run! The tests results ARE abided by, when both parties do the right thing. You expect, however, for a man , and only a man, to accept a child, support them, then some years down the road, question paternity & be resolved of the responsibility he accepted. That makes no sense, logically speaking, and poses the same problem as misnaming a father in the first place. How would you go about proving that the father was not complicit in the fraud? You can't; thus the reality remains.

It is disingenuous of you to accuse those who disagree with you of being against fairness & honesty. We simply accept reality. People often don't act fairly & are often less than honest. Neither men nor women corner the market on dishonesty. There are plenty of "crimes" akin to the type of perjury which you speak that are not prosecuted. A couple can divorce on grounds of adultery, still technically a crime in many places, but you don't hear of many prosecutions for adultery. Convenient for you that this issue assists you in furthering your agenda, but the facts remain.

It's always got to be a woman having a way to support herself via child support.

CS supports a child, not a woman. I believe that is at the heart of the issue here. Some seem to have convinced themselves that cp's are somehow reaping tremendous benefits from cs. Any of us with children are far too aware of the costs of having children. Assuming that a cp collects 25% of the other parent's income toward support for their child, and knowing full well that child care (for a younger than school age child) can be in excess of 30% of one's adjusted gross, it simply isn't true. I have never known, nor do I know anyone who has ever known a cp to get rich from cs.

I have ceased to participate for awhile now, as it is evident that there is no interest in truth or logic. Your agenda is quite obvious & you are entitled to have one. That doesn't make you any less childish in your insults or any more correct in your "facts". It is not 10% of children who are under a mistaken impression of who their father is, no matter how often you state that it is. Adjust the actual number, unknown though it is, by those children whose father is fully aware that he is not the biological father (yes, men commit paternity fraud as well!), and this is a fairly unimportant discussion relative to the problems faced today.

As I see it, all you have proven is that you want to have your cake & eat it too. Rich for you, but not relevant to the topic at hand nor an indication that you care at all for any children. As for your "logic"; not shit, simply nonexistent. Start with the basic: A+B=C. If I take on a child as my own, I have accepted responsibility, even when I no longer want it. It really is that simple, as far as the logic goes. Many have long agreed that the issue is more complicated than that, thus the quandry. Fair is never fair for all involved & the legal system has determined that fairness for the children takes precedence. I'm sorry the system does not agree that YOU should be #1 in decisions regarding fairness. Welcome to the real world.

No I've been very consistent in my stance no mandatory testing but allow testing to find the real parents.

Why are you still here then? There is no mandated testing, and testing IS allowed. Most often, the real father isn't fund because the man refuses to submit to a paternity, or simply disappears. You are ignoring the norm in favor of arguing for a few who really are defrauded.

So don't be ridiculous there are many reasons why a mother would name the wrong man.

You are absolutely right, not ALL women are out to "extort" money from men who didn't father their children. Guess what? There are many reasons why a named father would take off, fail to appear for a court date or knowingly take on the responsibility of a child not his.Both men & women are human, and more often than not they believe that they are doing the right thing, whether they be lying, stealing, deluding them self or others.

In 2006, University of Oklahoma anthropologist Kermyt Anderson determined that paternity testing studies conducted since 1949 indicate that 30 percent of men are not the biological fathers of their presumed children.[

You should do some research. Mr. Anderson concluded no such thing. His "study", informal, unsubstantiated & unpublished is simply a quote from a speech. In any case, what he was trying to determine was the correlation between paternity confidence & paternity results. The real truth behind what he found is evidence that the vast majority of men are pretty good at knowing whether or not to trust their partner. Given that, men would bear some responsibility for not having requested a DNA test, & for not responding to a petition naming them as a father by a disreputable woman.

And you are promoting that men that are not the father pay for children that are not theirs..... Whom is really wanting to control others?!?!?!

BTW I was doing the math on the C/S figures a man that pays 25% of his income and makes 50k will pay $225,000.00 in 18 years. And 25%is not the most he could be charged 35% is.... That would be $315,000.00!

Some of Madoffs victims didn't lose that much.....so again I'll say what you want to do to men that have not fathered children is no better than what Madoff did!

No one is promoting that at all. Mere mention of any understanding that the courts consider the effect on a child results in a flagrant display of hostility.

Your math is a bit strange. Federal Guidelines state "The support obligation is 18% to 24% of net income for one child, 28% to 37% for two children, 35% to 46% for three children, and up to 46% or 61% for six children. " Many are those parents who have arrangements outside of statutory, I believe more often than not. Actual dollars paid by a non-custodial parent is often less than suggested. I know you're exaggerating to make a point, but think a bit. Perhaps it is a difficult fight because your own "evidence" supports it. After all, it is very likely that the many of the men disclaiming paternity are avoiding cs, at some point for some period of time. Since 70% of them are potentially found to be in arrears, well I would think that would support a law which presupposes that the men are lying . After all, if 30% men successfully denying paternity warrants legal intervention on the basis that those women lied, certainly 70% of men who deny paternity not providing support would warrant the same.

Now I'm suppose to give you more information about myself for you to either attack or call me a liar on. This is how I know you have no credibility when it comes to tsar either.

It was you who used the occupations of others to deem them unworthy of input here. Interesting, and likely quite telling that you assume you would be called a liar in regards to your occupation. What, you're a priest?!?! You ARE entertaining! Carry on.

All you and cindy can do is attack me, my kid, and my ex girlfriend. Neither of you can effectively intelligently debate against my points.

No one has attacked the child you refer to as your kid, and it is you who refuse to intelligently debate. We've been sitting here watching you debate yourself. You are advocating for laws that would directly and adversely affect you were they to be enacted for both genders.

F*ck you first of all. Secondly I should have a choice in the mater because it's my choice on if I wish to support her or not. You state how it's nearly impossible to find some of these fathers. Hers will likely never be found so what did I hurt? As far as what I've had to protect her from it's none of your god damn business.

Curious logic.

You just acknowledged how difficult it can be to locate a father, you admitted to paternity fraud, you've defended your right to privacy. You must be very dizzy!

Am I overly aggressive when someone talks or even mentions my child? Maybe. I've had to protect her from a lot of sh!t.

From what I understand, though, she is not your child. She is someone else's child, whom you effectively stole. You are a deceitful perpetrator of fraud. You are aware of that, aren't you? and that you are arguing for the right to approach a court, 10 years from now, to deny this same child & refuse to continue to support her?ARE you aware of that?

You know as I read through these last posts I am reminded of how some will refuse facts no matter how they are presented.

You know, me too.

Notice that they never offer any positive solutions......they only want to hold the the old way that has been not only shown here to be a gross injustice...

If you mean solutions to the problem of women and men alike who are deceitful & who may (or may not) commit paternity fraud , I think it's pretty clear that some of us acknowledge how complicated an issue it is to "solve". The simple act of removing financial aid to a child doesn't solve the problem. The child suffers & there is no means presented by any of those in your camp for this child t then be made aware of who his/her father is. How many times does one have to post that we (I, at least) know it's not fair to these men, but life isn't fair. To fail to admit that at least some of these same men were likely aware that they were not the actual father is to present oneself as an embittered person with anger towards the opposite gender. Bottom line, I haven't seen you offer any solutions to the actual problem. The gross injustice here is that a child doesn't know who their father is & I haven't seen you offer any solutions for that. You have turned this into a sideshow, you & that weirdo who keeps posting under different names. This should have been a discussion about mandated DNA testing, but you have turned it into something else entirely, completely ignoring not only facts but reality.

And yes I will continue in these forums as it does my heart good to see the work I'm doing on this causing the abusers and their proponents so much distress.

I mean what are they going to do now....... They might just have to tell the truth and be honest....

That is immature & quite wrong. I, for one have no distress over this. I don't cheat don't lie, don't have children by different fathers, don't whore around, have no intent to deceive anyone . I work hard & take good care of my children, all of whom are smart, decent lovely young women of integrity & strong morals. Neither they nor I have ever been involved with a drug addict, criminal or otherwise disreputable partner. I will do now what I have been doing; feel sorry for the likes of you.

You and your cronies have done plenty. If you saw the photo or bothered with any of the information I provided you would have seen the photo was of you.

Nice to have you hand over so much power to us; thanks! The info &photo links you posted show nothing more than that you are a complete azz.

Your profession proves you have no idea what your talking about yet you pretend to be some sort of authority that you aren't. You provide more misinformation than you could ever correct.

Quite a ridiculous statement. Not even worth further comment.

Takes an insane rambler to know one.

Note: INANE, so "s", hun.

No we only want after 122 pages and several years of your insanity for the actual fathers to be responsible fr their own children. As stated repeatedly by several male posters.

That's a crock! You have shown no inclination toward even seeking the actual fathers. Give that, by your own admission, 70% of men who deny paternity are found to actually be fathers, I guess we're not doing so badly with the current scenario. Simply keep denying paternity & continue being proven wrong.

You have no right to deem my feelings "false". You don't get to decide what I promote, only to state that you believe that I may be promoting something.

For instance, I believe that you don;t give a rat's azz about equal rights; you simply want men, and men alone to be able to choose their degree of responsibility & the length of time they want to be held responsible. We don't have the civil right to "opt out" of many of our responsibilities.

Most women receive child support. Does that mean we should ignore the significant amount of them that don't receive child support as they should?

Of course not. Neither should we enact legislation that would make all men pay CS whether they have children or not. Your statement, btw is completely unrelated to the post to which you responded. Just sayin'.

Again if it's not their biological children they shouldn't have to pay.

That's your opinion, ok. On its' face, it's a statement most of us would not disagree with. We can admit, however, that it may not be so cut & dry, depending on the situation. We are entitled to have differing opinions, without resorting to childish accusations, inane ramblings the like. In any case, that is the most mature post you've made; congrats to you!

Default judgment means that someone can put your name down. That you do not know that you did not touch. Yet the court says "you did not come to the first hearing". So many of these men have said I didn't get the notice before they started taking money out of my checks. Process servers have actually been cross-examined. They couldn't tell you the color of the house or if they even served the right person. So naturally these men declared fathers by the stroke of a pen are upset. How do you defend a lawsuit that you never got the notice on?

Default judgement means that you didn't show up for your court date; nothing more, nothing less. Now you're insinuating that process'servers are in on the whole thing. You claim that the state is able to find these same men so easily to garnish their wages, yet can't locate them in order to serve them with court papers? BS. Such instances are rare. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this. Sure, "so many of these men" said this. These are the same men who are very likely to have bolted prior to the birth of what far more often than not turns out to be their child. Many of them are suddenly unable to be found in order to collect CS. Doesn't it seem funny that only those innocent men victimized by whorish women are in such circumstances.

You and your cronies had my profile booted because you didn't like what I had to say. I thought at first you were all the same person as you accused me and tsar of being. Then after looking at Cindy's picture I realized something. So I made a fake profile and messaged you and got your picture along with pank and all your cronies that have no pictures.

You're such a child! A liar, to boot You never messaged me, I never sent you a photo, never accused you & Tsar of being one & the same & I had nothing at all to do with having anyone's profile removed.

My profession has nothing to do with my input here. My participation in this specific thread is due to my strong feelings that our civil rights should be protected. I have every right to comment on the misinformation & anti female remarks posted here, no matter my occupation. So do you, no matter how infantile your input. Me thinks you might need an inch or two (heehee).

It's only complicated to people like you who complicate it intentionally to further your B.S. agenda. Men don't want to be made to pay for children that aren't theirs. So stop making men that aren't biologically a child/rens father pay for them. Done and done.

I don't make men do anything, and I have no agenda. It seems you also can't see past yours though. Do you not admit that there are men who knowingly accept a child as their own, then want to opt out once their relationship with the child's mother fails? While this may sound fine as far as the man is concerned, aren't you able to see the position that looks at the impact on the child? Do you really think that all men are innocent victims of the town whores they sleep with? Do you really think that all men who fail to show for a paternity determination hearing were unaware of the hearing? I don't think you're that foolish. I think you are selfish & want to ignore the complicated issue that is reality. It is not a fact that a man who denies paternity of a newborn is forced to pay CS pursuant to his requested hearing. It is not a fact that a man who isn't around for the birth but is notified of a hearing within 6 months is forced to pay CS. It is the man who treated a child as his own who may be forced to do so. Perhaps he was lied to & perhaps he knew or suspected all along but was too stupid to act upon his suspicions. I agree, it may not seem fair, but it does seem fair to the child he accepted as his own, thus it can be a complicated issue.

What is the problem, then? If they show & are proven not to be father shortly after the child's birth, and not having signed an acknowledgement of paternity, they are not forced to pay. Even if you say they are, we of sound mind know better.

You simply can't stop, can you?First you claim that the states hunt a man down to get his "extorted" dollars, then you claim the state is unable to find all these men who don't show up. You continually back up, spin & ultimately fall.

Are you for real?! The subjects were self selected, hardly a random sampling. Those with low degree of confidence in their partner. It's not about agenda, and it actually furthers the studies you cite elsewhere. Higher degrees of non paternity are likely for those with low degree of confidence. Bottom line, choose your partner wisely! btw, is also points to the fact that many of the men you are defending knew, or should have known that the risk of the child carried by their partner was not theirs. If they took no action (did not petition court for paternity test or failed to show up for their court date), I am guessing there is a legal argument from that side as well. Were you able to remove the personal from this discussion, I think you'd clearly see why this is a complicated issue.

The facts ARE clear, very easy to find, and they contradict what you continue to say that they are. 30% is not considered a valid estimate by anyone except the activist male rights groups.

Really the best interests of the children would be served if they had an honest mother!

Certainly all children would be best served by having two honest, loving parent, particularly if those parents stay together, but that is off topic & simply an attempt to misdirect & insinuate that I have said the opposite. A bit immature, I might add.

Please show where I've called for mandatory testing....... Either show where I've call for it or quit lying about me saying such

"The cases were usually settled by forgiving the arrearage the man owed from failing to pay for months or years," Assistant County Prosecutor Laura Gallagher said. "Since the men weren't paying it as ordered in the first place, most mothers' budgets won't be devastated"

This is from the same passage now are you finely admitting this is fact or are you picking and choosing the "facts" you want to use?

Thank you for proving everything I've said was fact with this website.

Interesting that you say this, as if you were to delve a bit into your Kermyt Anderson a bit, you would see that his studies support what many of us have said. Men who choose to lay with disreputable women are likely to be lied to. For those men who had trust in their partners, no country had an incidence of non paternity greater than 11%. So I guess what you really support is lack of personal responsibility for men.

I've never called for mandated testing.....NEVER.....I have called for the ability of an accused man to determine paternity and if NOT the father to not have to pay for the test or the child.

Way to backpedal! "Accused" men already have the ability to determine paternity (actually, to prove themselves not the father), with time constraints. We can argue about that all day & most of us, certainly I, have stated that we acknowledge that it would seem unfair for a man to have to pay for another man's child. Having said that, most of us are reasonable enough to understand why a ma who has stood as father to a child for a period of time may be made to continue.

Again I've NEVER called for mandatory testing......... Why do you continue to try and say I do......could it be that you have no way to refute my POV

Are you aware that the topic at hand is mandatory testing? Oh, I forgot, you are too wrapped up in your agenda to focus on the topic!

Do a state by state search.... You will see it still happens in some states...... You forget I posted a case on exactly this that went to the California Supreme Court.So if it never happens as you claim...... How did a case get to the CSC? There is reliance on ignorance but I'm not I don't post conjecture and bull butter I post facts.

I haven't claimed that it never happens; talk about spinning. I have continually & quite plainly stated that it doesn't happen to a degree sufficient to warrant mandated testing. The topic at hand, remember?

I don't know if you are aware that the 30% number is derived from those fathers who already suspected they were not the father? This very select subgroup is actually a tiny percent of all fathers.

Thank you, Dragon for acknowledging this. Although it has been claimed that the 30% comes from blood testing of college students; a test supposedly performed in a classroom, sometime in the 1950's. Referred to during a speech once, but not a clinical study by any means. Still, expect to have this thrown back at you.

-ALL states in the US offer to an unmarried couple establishment of paternity by signing a voluntary acknowledgement.- In some states, that is the ONLY way an unmarried man can be placed on a child's birth certificate. In those states, a mother would have to go to court to have paternity established, were the father to refuse to sign or was not present. - In those states where a woman can place a man's name on a birth certificate, or if a named father refuses to sign an acknowledgement, the state will initiate court proceedings to determine paternity. He will be notified of a date for proceedings whereby paternity would be established.

This is pretty simple, and it is factual.

I am certain that some number of men who voluntarily sign acknowledgements know or suspect that they may not be the actual father. Equally paternity fraud, yet understandable to some degree, complicated in a manner not unlike the laws that may "force" some of those same men to continue playing dad after they change their mind. I am certain that not all of the men who miss their court date never received the notice. Men & women are equally deceitful, and likely commit true paternity "fraud" on a more equal level that some would like to admit.

I cannot use any of this, nor can I think of any other instance that would make me decide that mandating DNA testing is necessary, nor would be a good idea.

No the 30% number that I mentioned and that c4 has backed up in her source is that 30% of children are not sired by the man they are told is their father.

C4's post actually shows all three of the studies made since 1949 that all show a 30% result. So are you also questioning her claim of 30%?

Absolutely, although I comprehend well enough to realize that it is not "her claim". Nice move, though! It is widely believed to be an inaccurate reference thrown about most often by activists. Worldwide, the figure is actually believed to somewhere between 1/2%, up to 30%, most likely in the range of 3%. The numbers, btw aren't related to paternity fraud, rather discrepancies between legal fathers & biological fathers, so the number would be slightly lower no matter the source of the data. Seeking out sources dear to your heart, Tsar will likely find you the results you want, but that is not fact finding.

Extortion, really? Such drama! Are you're sure not a woman?

Not complicated at all..... The actual parents pay for their own children...... See how simple that is. Of course all that requires is honesty from both partners.....which seems to be a problem for you and c4.....why is that?

You may think you're a master at twisting both words & facts but you are quite pathetic. Your leap from reality to accusations completely unrelated to the statements made by others is so far that I'm surprised you haven't fallen to your death.Reality is that many actual parents, men & women alike, DON'T pay for their children, but that is not the topic here. What is complicated, from a legal standpoint, is relieving someone of a responsibility for a child they acknowledged, a responsibility they willing accepted for some period of time. In the case of marriage, yes, by virtue of not denying paternity, but still, an acknowledgement. The law that does so is complicated because we know that it may seem unfair to the men affected in most cases, but the best interest of the child is served. You don't have to agree with that tenet, but be man enough to say so, rather than hiding behind insults hurled at others that have no basis in fact. I don't believe that you are to stupid to comprehend this, I believe you are hoping that enough others are so as to further your agenda.

No that is not clear.......Why are you not willing to let the laws be equal for both genders? Why do women get to extort men.

Perhaps I was wrong, and you really are an idiot. Mandated DNA testing does not make laws equal for both genders. Women do not "extort" men legally no matter how your distorted view or personal experience led you to that conclusion. I'm sorry for you.

My interest in this topic is that the ACTUAL PARENTS pay for their children.

So you say, yet mandated testing doesn't result in a determination of who the actual father is. As for your "facts", they consist of half truths, and ignore facts that are pertinent.

some people argue just to be right. They really don't care of they are right or wrong. For example:How can someone use the phrase "Best interest of the child" yet argue against ensuring the child isn't deprived of knowing its natural father.... it's a contradiction within itself

Yes, most definitely your friend Tsar. You as well fail to acknowledge that mandated testing in no way ensures that a child will know who fathered them. You are entitled to your opinion & to your agenda, but at least be honest. There is no care for children in your agenda at all. No allowance for the fact that some men (see example "Navarro") treated a child as their own for many years, then, when things didn't go right between them & their partner, suddenly want to be absolved of a responsibility they willingly (perhaps knowingly, which cannot likely be established) accepted.

They can just name someone and the man becomes the punitive father.

That is not at all true. Easy enough to google, but I imagine you know this already & are banking on the fact that those who are ignorant enough to fall for it are likely already in your camp, so keep telling yourself that.

Cindy is right for sure on this; You're So predictable! So completely unable to see past your own agenda, with total lack of empathy for the children involved, refusing to allow that men in these situations just might be a part of the deception, so willing to label any female who disagrees with your coldhearted, onesided view a misandrist. You are truly pathetic.